What is the standard of review for assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction?

The standard of review for assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is "highly deferential." (People v. Lochtefeld (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 533, 538.) Our task is to review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence of the defendant's guilt. (People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 917.) In so doing, we do not reweigh the evidence or reevaluate the credibility of the witnesses who testified at trial; rather, "'[w]e presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citation.] . . . "[I]f the circumstances reasonably justify the jury's findings, the judgment may not be reversed simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding." [Citation.]'" (Ibid.) "The conviction shall stand 'unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever

Page 5

is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [it]."' [Citation.]" (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 508.)